Erm, yes it does.Conversely, calling something a prequel to something else when it doesn’t actually meet the criteria and definition of the term
Erm, yes it does.Conversely, calling something a prequel to something else when it doesn’t actually meet the criteria and definition of the term
Erm, yes it does.
What it means to you is not definitive.Not to me it doesn’t.
Do you own a dictionary?Not to me it doesn’t.
Conversely, calling something a prequel to something else when it doesn’t actually meet the criteria and definition of the term is problematic as well and creates the same false narratives and expectations.
tbh, it is 2019. facts stopped to matter somewhere in the last decade or so. I vaguely remember facts, I think I liked them, as far as I recall, but they have gone the way of the DodoThe problem [...] is that you don't have the facts on your side.
tbh, it is 2019. facts stopped to matter somewhere in the last decade or so. I vaguely remember facts, I think I liked them, as far as I recall, but they have gone the way of the Dodo![]()
just an observation of the world we live inWhat a sad and defeatist attitude to have.
just an observation of the world we live in
What it means to you is not definitive.
Do you own a dictionary?
The problem with your attempt to twist my words into supporting your argument is that you don't have the facts on your side.
There is absolutely nothing that is in any way significant that "disqualifies" DSC as being a Prequel according to the dictionary and cultural definition of that term.
So in the words of Willy Wonka, "You get nothing. You lose. Good day, Sir".
Smarmy response aside, owning a dictionary has nothing to do with how I feel about DSC being a prequel to TOS.
Some of the spectators in a sports arena may "feel" a ball was out of bounds when it was called in, but their feelings won't affect how the game is played. There were fans back in 1979 and the early '80s who insisted that the TOS movies weren't legitimate sequels. There were fans who insisted TNG wasn't a legitimate sequel. There are always fans who "feel" that the new version doesn't fit -- and it never, ever takes, because the people who only watch the game don't get to make the calls. There is an objective reality that transcends your feelings, no matter how much you pretend it's the other way around.
Well it's impossible to have Pike post-TOS. So it already has.Perhaps this will change in season 2 and beyond.
Well it's impossible to have Pike post-TOS. So it already has.
Yeah, except I know my feelings are my own, and don't really care what others think. I like DSC, I bought the blurays, I'm looking forward to season 2, but I think that it fails as a 10-year-prior prequel to TOS. Almost everything about the show could have been told as a post-TUC story, or even a post-NEM story. To me, there's nothing about season 1 that remotely connects it to TOS other than some name-dropping. Perhaps this will change in season 2 and beyond.
Bringing Pike aboard, to me, is a direct response to season 1, and the producers trying to sweep it under the rug and get back to making the show more like TOS. Which is fine by me.
Yeah, except I know my feelings are my own, and don't really care what others think.
And you've missed the point.
DSC is a Prequel to TOS; that is an objective fact whether you like it or not and whether you "feel like it fits" or not.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it is ultimately irrelevant, and trying to insinuate that recognizing the basic fact that DSC is a Prequel to TOS "creates a false narrative and false expectations" is going beyond just " sticking to your guns" on this; it's peddling "alternative facts".
If you don't care what others think, why are you participating in a public discussion board?
Yes it is.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.